Advertisement

Journal of the Knowledge Economy

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 467–493 | Cite as

Quadruple Helix Structures of Quality of Democracy in Innovation Systems: the USA, OECD Countries, and EU Member Countries in Global Comparison

  • David F. J. Campbell
  • Elias G. Carayannis
  • Scheherazade S. Rehman
Article

Abstract

The analytical research question of this contribution is twofold. (1) To develop (and to proto-type) a conceptual framework of analysis for a global comparison of quality of democracy. This framework also references to the concept of the “Quadruple Helix innovation systems” (Carayannis and Campbell). (2) The same conceptual framework is being used and tested for comparing and measuring empirical quality of democracy in the different OECD and European Union (EU27) member countries. In theoretical and conceptual terms, we refer to a Quadruple-Dimensional structure, also a Quadruple Helix structure (a “Model of Quadruple Helix Structures”) of the four basic (conceptual) dimensions of freedom, equality, control, and sustainable development for explaining and comparing democracy and quality of democracy. Put in summary, we may conclude for the USA that the comparative strength of quality of democracy in the USA focuses on the dimension of freedom. The comparative weakness of the quality of democracy in the USA lies in the dimension of equality, most importantly income equality. Quadruple Helix refers here to at least two crucial perspectives: (1) the unfolding of an innovative knowledge economy also requires (at least in a longer perspective) the unfolding of a knowledge democracy; (2) knowledge and innovation are being defined as key for sustainable development and for the further evolution of quality of democracy. How to innovate (and reinvent) knowledge democracy? There is a potential that democracy discourses and innovation discourses advance in a next-step and two-way mutual cross-reference. The architectures of Quadruple Helix (and Quintuple Helix) innovation systems demand and require the formation of a democracy, implicating that quality of democracy provides for a support and encouragement of innovation and innovation systems, so that quality of democracy and progress of innovation mutually “Cross-Helix” in a connecting and amplifying mode and manner. This relates research on quality of democracy to research on innovation (innovation systems) and the knowledge economy. “Cyber democracy” receives here a new and important meaning.

Keywords

Basic quadruple-dimensional structure of quality of democracy Democracy Cyber democracy Interdisciplinary International comparison of OECD and European Union member countries Knowledge democracy Quadruple and quintuple helix Quadruple helix innovation systems Quality of democracy Trans-disciplinary USA 

References

  1. Barth, T. D. (2010). Konzeption, Messung und Rating der Demokratiequalität. Brasilien, Südafrika, Australien und die Russische Föderation 1997-2006. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.Google Scholar
  2. Barth, T. D. (2011). Die 20 besten Demokratien der Welt. Freiheit – Gleichheit – Demokratiequalität auf einen Blick. Norderstedt: Books on Demand.Google Scholar
  3. Bast, G., Carayannis, E.G., Campbell, D.F.J., (Eds.) (2015). Arts, Research, Innovation and Society. New York, NY: Springer (http://www.springer.com/business+%26+management/technology+management/book/978-3-319-09908-8).
  4. Beck, E. R. A., & Schaller, C. (2003). Zur Qualität der britischen und österreichischen Demokratie. Vienna: Böhlau.Google Scholar
  5. Beetham, D. (1994). Key principles and indices for a democratic audit, 25-43. In D. Beetham (Ed.), Defining and measuring democracy. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Beetham, D. (2004). Freedom as the foundation. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beetham, D., Byrne, I., Ngan, P., & Weir, S. (Eds.). (2002). Democracy under Blair. A democratic audit of the United Kingdom. London: Politico’s Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Bühlmann, M., Merkel, W., Müller, L., Weßels, B. (2011). The democracy barometer: a new instrument to measure the quality of democracy and its potential for comparative research. European Political Science (16 December 2011), doi: 10.1057/eps.2011.46 (http://www.palgrave-journals.com/eps/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/eps201146a.html).
  9. Campbell, D.F.J. (2002). Zur Demokratiequalität von politischem Wechsel, Wettbewerb und politischem System in Österreich, 19-46. In D. F. J. Campbell, C. Schaller (Eds.), Demokratiequalität in Österreich. Opladen: Leske + Budrich (http://www.oegpw.at/sek_agora/publikationen.htm and http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/View/?resid=12473).
  10. Campbell, D.F.J. (2007). Wie links oder wie rechts sind Österreichs Länder? Eine komparative Langzeitanalyse des parlamentarischen Mehrebenensystems Österreichs (1945-2007). SWS-Rundschau 47(4), 381-404 (http://www.sws-rundschau.at/archiv/SWS_2007_4_campbell.pdf and http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/View/?resid=12472&lang=de).
  11. Campbell, D.F.J. (2008). The basic concept for the democracy ranking of the quality of democracy. Vienna: Democracy Ranking (http://www.democracyranking.org/downloads/basic_concept_democracy_ranking_2008_A4.pdf).
  12. Campbell, D.F.J. (2011). Key findings (Summary abstract) of the Democracy Ranking 2011 and of the Democracy Improvement Ranking 2011. Vienna: Democracy Ranking (http://www.democracyranking.org/downloads/Key-findings_Democracy-Ranking_2011_en-A4.pdf).
  13. Campbell, D. F. J. (2012). Die österreichische Demokratiequalität in Perspektive [The Quality of Democracy in Austria in Perspective], 293-315. In L. Helms & D. M. Wineroither (Eds.), Die österreichische Demokratie im Vergleich [Austrian Democracy in Comparison]. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  14. Campbell, D. F. J. (2013). Conceptualizing and measuring the quality of democracy in global comparison. freedom, equality, sustainable development, and political self-organization (Political Swings, Government/Opposition Cycles) in 151 countries (democracies, semi-democracies and non-democracies), 2002-2008. Habilitation Treatise (“Habilitationsschrift”). Vienna: University of Vienna.Google Scholar
  15. Campbell, D.F.J. (2015). Reformvorschläge für Österreichs Demokratie: Diskussionspunkte zur Demokratiequalität [Reform Proposal for Austrian Democracy: Discussion Points on Quality of Democracy], 43-56. In T. Öhlinger, K. Poier (Eds.): Direkte Demokratie und Parlamentarismus. Wie kommen wir zu den besten Entscheidungen? [Direct Democracy and Parliamentarism. How Do We Make the Best Decisions?] Vienna: Böhlau (http://www.amazon.de/Direkte-Demokratie-Parlamentarismus-kommen-Entscheidungen/dp/3205796659/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1423650423&sr=8-1&keywords=klaus+poier).
  16. Campbell, D.F.J., Barth, T.D. (2009). Wie können Demokratie und Demokratiequalität gemessen werden? Modelle, Demokratie-Indices und Länderbeispiele im globalen Vergleich. SWS-Rundschau 49(2), 208-233 (http://www.sws-rundschau.at/archiv/SWS_2009_2_Campbell.pdf and http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/View/?resid=12471).
  17. Campbell, D.F.J., Carayannis, E.G. (2013a). Quality of Democracy and Innovation, 1527-1534, In E.G. Carayannis (Editor-in-Chief) / I. N. Dubina, N. Seel, D. F. J. Campbell, D. Uzunidis (Associate Editors): Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York, NY: Springer (http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-1-4614-3858-8_509#).
  18. Campbell, D.F.J., Carayannis, E.G. (2013b). Epistemic governance in higher education. Quality Enhancement of Universities for Development. (SpringerBriefs in Business.). New York, NY: Springer (http://www.springer.com/business+%26+management/organization/book/978-1-4614-4417-6).
  19. Campbell, D.F.J., Carayannis, E.G. (2014). Explaining and comparing quality of democracy in quadruple helix structures: the quality of democracy in the United States and in Austria, challenges and opportunities for development, 117-148. In E.G. Carayannis, D. F. J. Campbell, M. P. Efthymiopoulos (Eds.): Cyber-Development, Cyber-Democracy and Cyber-Defense. Challenges, Opportunities and Implications for Theory, Policy and Practice. New York, NY: Springer (http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4939-1028-1 and http://www.springer.com/de/book/9781493910274).
  20. Campbell, D.F.J., Schaller, C., (Eds.) (2002). Demokratiequalität in Österreich. Zustand und Entwicklungsperspektiven. Opladen: Leske + Budrich (http://www.oegpw.at/sek_agora/publikationen.htm und http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/View/?resid=12473).
  21. Campbell, D.F.J., Sükösd, M. (Eds.) (2002). Feasibility study for a quality ranking of democracies. Vienna: Global Democracy Award. (http://www.democracyranking.org/downloads/feasibility_study-a4-e-01.pdf).
  22. Campbell, D. F. J., Liebhart, K., Martinsen, R., Schaller, C., & Schedler, A. (Eds.). (1996). Die Qualität der österreichischen Demokratie. Versuche einer Annäherung. Vienna: Manz.Google Scholar
  23. Campbell, D.F.J., Carayannis, E.G., Barth, T.D., Campbell, G.S. (2013). Measuring democracy and the quality of democracy in a world-wide approach: models and indices of democracy and the new findings of the “Democracy ranking”. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development 4 (1), 1-16 (http://www.igi-global.com/article/measuring-democracy-quality-democracy-world/77344).
  24. Carayannis, E.G., Campbell, D.F.J. (2009). “Mode 3” and “Quadruple Helix”: Toward a 21st Century Fractal Innovation Ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management 46 (3/4), 201-234 (http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=27&year=2009&vol=46&issue=3/4 and http://www.inderscience.com/search/index.php?action=record&rec_id=23374&prevQuery=&ps=10&m=or).
  25. Carayannis, E.G., & Campbell, D.F.J. (2010). Triple helix, quadruple helix and quintuple helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other? A proposed framework for a trans-disciplinary analysis of sustainable development and social ecology. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, 1 (1), 41-69 (http://www.igi-global.com/bookstore/article.aspx?titleid=41959).
  26. Carayannis, E.G., Campbell, D.F.J. (2011). Open Innovation Diplomacy and a 21st Century Fractal Research, Education and Innovation (FREIE) Ecosystem: Building on the Quadruple and Quintuple Helix Innovation Concepts and the “Mode 3” Knowledge Production System. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 2 (3), 327-372 (http://www.springerlink.com/content/d1lr223321305579/).
  27. Carayannis, E.G., Campbell, D.F.J. (2012). Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems. 21st-Century Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Development. SpringerBriefs in Business, Volume 7. New York, New York: Springer (http://www.springer.com/business+%26+management/book/978-1-4614-2061-3 and http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9781461420613-c1.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1263639-p174250662).
  28. Carayannis, E.G., Campbell, D.F.J. (2014). Developed democracies versus emerging autocracies: arts, democracy, and innovation in quadruple helix innovation systems. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 3:12 (http://www.innovation-entrepreneurship.com/content/pdf/s13731-014-0012-2.pdf and http://www.innovation-entrepreneurship.com/content/3/1/12)
  29. Carayannis, E.G., Campbell, D.F.J. (2015). Art and artistic research in quadruple and quintuple helix innovation systems, 29-51. In G. Bast, E. G. Carayannis, D. F. J. Campbell (Eds.). Arts, Research, Innovation and Society. New York, NY: Springer (http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-09909-5_3).
  30. Carayannis, E.G., Barth, T.D., Campbell, D.F.J. (2012). The quintuple helix innovation model: global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 1 (1), 1-12 (http://www.innovation-entrepreneurship.com/content/pdf/2192-5372-1-2.pdf).
  31. Carayannis, E.G., Campbell, D.F.J., Efthymiopoulos, M.P., (Eds.) (2017). Handbook of cyber-development, cyber-democracy, and cyber-defense. New York, NY: Springer (forthcoming) (http://www.springer.com/economics/policy/book/978-3-319-09068-9).
  32. Cullell, J. V. et al. (2004). Democracy and the quality of democracy. Empirical findings and methodological and theoretical issues drawn from the citizen audit of the quality of democracy in Costa Rica, 93-162. In G. O’Donnell, J. V. Cullell, & O. M. Iazzetta (Eds.), The quality of democracy. Theory and applications. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  33. Cunningham, F. (2002). Theories of democracy. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy. Participation and opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Danilda, I., Lindberg, M., Torstensson, B.-M. (2009). Women resource centres. A Quattro Helix Innovation System on the European Agenda. Paper (http://www.hss09.se/own_documents/Papers/3-11%20-%20Danilda%20Lindberg%20&%20Torstensson%20-%20paper.pdf).
  36. Democracy Ranking (2011). Democracy Ranking 2011 and the Democracy Improvement Ranking 2011. Vienna: Democracy Ranking (http://www.democracyranking.org/en/ranking.htm).
  37. Diamond, L., & Morlino, L. (2004). The quality of democracy. An overview. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 20–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Diamond, L., & Morlino, L. (2005). Assessing the quality of democracy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  40. EIU / Economist Intelligence Unit (2010). Democracy Index 2010. Democracy in Retreat. London: Economist Intelligence Unit (http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy_Index_2010_web.pdf).
  41. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and “mode 2” to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Freedom House (2011a). Freedom in the World 2011. Methodology. Washington, DC: Freedom House (http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=351&ana_page=379&year=2011).
  43. Freedom House (2011b). Freedom in the World – Population Trends. Washington, DC: Freedom House (http://www.freedomhouse.org/images/File/fiw/historical/PopulationTrendsFIW1980-2011.pdf).
  44. Freedom House (2011c). Freedom in the World Aggregate and Subcategory Scores. Washington, DC. Freedom House (http://www.freedomhouse.org/images/File/fiw/historical/AggregateScores_FIW2003-2011.xls).
  45. Freedom House (2011d). Freedom of the Press (2011 Edition). Country Reports. Washington, DC. Freedom House (http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=107&year=2011).
  46. Fröschl, E., Kozeluh, U., & Schaller, C. (2008). Democratisation and de-democratisation in Europe? Austria, Britain, Italy, and the Czech Republic—a comparison. Innsbruck: Studienverlag (Transaction Publishers).Google Scholar
  47. Gastil, R. D. (1993). The comparative survey of freedom: Experiences and suggestions, 21-46. In A. Inkeles (Ed.), On measuring democracy. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  48. Harding, S., Phillips, D., & Fogarty, M. (1986). Contrasting values in Western Europe. Unity, diversity and change. Studies in the contemporary values of modern society. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  49. Hausmann, R., Tyson, L.D., Zahidi, S. (Hrsg) (2011). The Global Gender Gap Report 2011. Genf: World Economic Forum (http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2011.pdf).
  50. Held, D. (2006). Models of democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Helms, L. (2007). Die Institutionalisierung der liberalen Demokratie. Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich. Campus: Frankfurt.Google Scholar
  52. Heritage Foundation (2011). 2011 Index of Economic Freedom. Ranking the Countries. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/index/pdf/2011/Index2011_Ranking.pdf).
  53. Huddleston, T., Niessen, J., Ni Chaoimh, E., White, E. (Eds.) (2011). Migrant integration policy index III. Brüssel: British Council and Migration Policy Group (http://www.mipex.eu/sites/default/files/downloads/migrant_integration_policy_index_mipexiii_2011.pdf).
  54. IDEA / International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (David Beetham / Edzia Carvalho / Todd Landman / Stuart Weir) (2008). Assessing the quality of democracy. A Practical Guide. Stockholm: International IDEA (http://www.idea.int/publications/aqd/index.cfm).
  55. IMF / International Monetary Fund (2011). World Economic Outlook, April 2011. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/01/pdf/text.pdf).
  56. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  57. Lauth, H.-J. (2004). Demokratie und Demokratiemessung. Eine konzeptionelle Grundlegung für den interkulturellen Vergleich. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  58. Lauth, H.-J. (2010). Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Demokratiemessung. Zeitschrift für Staats- und Europawissenschaften, 8(4), 498–529.Google Scholar
  59. Lauth, H.-J. (2011). Qualitative Ansätze der Demokratiemessung. Zeitschrift für Staats- und Europawissenschaften, 9(1), 49–77.Google Scholar
  60. Lauth, H.-J., Pickel, G., & Welzel, C. (Eds.). (2000). Demokratiemessung. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  61. Marshall, T. H. (1964). Class, citizenship, and social development. Essays. Garden City: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  62. Müller, W. C., & Strøm, K. (2000). Conclusion: Coalition governance in Western Europe, 559-592. In K. Strøm & W. C. Müller (Eds.), Coalition governments in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Munck, G. L. (2009). Measuring democracy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  64. O’Donnell, G. (2004a). Human development, human rights, and democracy, 9-92. In G. O’Donnell, J. V. Cullell, & O. M. Iazzetta (Eds.), The quality of democracy. Theory and applications. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  65. O’Donnell, G. (2004b). Why the rule of law matters. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 32–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. OECD (2011). OECD.Stat Extracts. Social and Welfare Statistics. Paris: OECD (http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx).
  67. Pelinka, A. (2008). Democratisation and de-democratisation in Austria, 21-36. In E. Fröschl et al. (Eds.), Democratisation and de-democratisation in Europe? Austria, Britain, Italy, and the Czech Republic—a comparison. Innsbruck: Studienverlag (Transaction Publishers).Google Scholar
  68. Pelinka, A., & Rosenberger, S. (2003). Österreichische Politik. Grundlagen, Strukturen, Trends. Vienna: Facultas WUV.Google Scholar
  69. Pickel, S., & Pickel, G. (2006). Politische Kultur- und Demokratieforschung. Grundbegriffe, Theorien, Methoden. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  70. Poier, K. (2001). Minderheitenfreundliches Mehrheitswahlrecht. Rechts- und politikwissenschaftliche Überlegungen zu Fragen des Wahlrechts und der Wahlsystematik. Vienna: Böhlau.Google Scholar
  71. Przeworski, A., Alvarez, M. E., Cheibub, J. A., & Limongi, F. (2003). Democracy and development. Political institutions and well-being in the world, 1950-1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Rosenberger, S. (Ed.). (2010). Asylpolitik in Österreich. Unterbringung im Fokus. Vienna: Facultas.Google Scholar
  73. Rosenberger, S., & Seeber, G. (2008). Wählen. Vienna: Facultas WUV (UTB).Google Scholar
  74. Schmidt, M. G. (2010). Demokratietheorien. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Schmitter, P. C. (2004). The ambiguous virtues of accountability. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sickinger, H. (2009). Politikfinanzierung in Österreich. Vienna: Czernin.Google Scholar
  77. Sodaro, M. J. (2004). Comparative politics. A global introduction. Boston: Mc Graw Hill.Google Scholar
  78. Stoiber, M. (2011). Die Qualität von Demokratien im Vergleich. Zur Bedeutung des Kontextes in der empirisch vergleichenden Demokratietheorie. Nomos: Baden-Baden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. TI / Transparency International (2011). Transparency International Annual Report 2010. Berlin: TI (http://www.transparency.org/content/download/61964/992803).
  80. Umpleby, S.A. (1990). The science of cybernetics and the cybernetics of science. Cybernetics and Systems 21(1), 109–121 (ftp://ftp.vub.ac.be/pub/projects/Principia_Cybernetica/Papers_Umpleby/Science-Cybernetics.txt).
  81. UNDP / United Nations Development Program (2000). Human Development Report 2000. Human Rights and Human Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press (http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2000/).
  82. UNDP / United Nations Development Program (2011). Human Development Report 2011. Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All. New York: UNDP (http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2011_EN_Complete.pdf).
  83. Valchars, G. (2006). Defizitäre Demokratie. Staatsbürgerschaft und Wahlrecht im Einwanderungsland Österreich. Vienna: Braumüller.Google Scholar
  84. Vanhanen, T. (2000). A new dataset for measuring democracy, 1810-1998. Journal of Peace Research, 37(2), 251–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics or control and communication in the animal and the machine. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  86. Wineroither, D. M. (2009). Kanzlermacht – Machtkanzler? Die Regierung Schüssel in historischen und internationalen Vergleich. Vienna: LIT-Verlag.Google Scholar
  87. Winiwarter, V., & Knoll, M. (2007). Umweltgeschichte. Cologne: Böhlau.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • David F. J. Campbell
    • 1
    • 2
  • Elias G. Carayannis
    • 3
    • 5
    • 6
  • Scheherazade S. Rehman
    • 4
  1. 1.Faculty for Interdisciplinary Studies (iff), Institute of Science Communication and Higher Education Research (WIHO)Alpen-Adria-University of KlagenfurtViennaAustria
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  3. 3.Department of Information Systems and Technology ManagementGeorge Washington University, School of BusinessWashingtonUSA
  4. 4.Elliott School of International AffairsGeorge Washington UniversityWashingtonUSA
  5. 5.Science, Technology, Innovation and Entrepreneurship George Washington University, School of BusinessWashingtonUSA
  6. 6.Innovation and EntrepreneurshipMacedoniaGreece

Personalised recommendations